What Makes a Good Government

A few weeks ago I was in a conversation with a friend where the topic of government came up. That isn't uncommon, but on this particular day the question was "what defines whether or not a government is good or not?" There were some suggestions made, like how frequently the government engaged in wars, how much of a culture of technological development there was, how safe it was to live in the country, etc. All were good suggestions, and important. However, after some thought I think I have found a metric, with some sub parts, that really get to the bottom of it.

The definition is pretty simple. A good government is one where the rules are consistent, knowable, and followable.

Consistent
Having rules and laws that are consistent means that they apply the same way to everyone and don't change very often. If there are different sets of rules based on all sorts of variables it both makes it harder to comply with the law as well as fostering discontent because of seeming unfair favor.

Additionally in situations where there are multiple factions with different sets of rules (organized crime or warlords etc.) it can make things very complicated based on who is in charge of a situation.

The biggest way that consistency can be implemented is through the rule of law. Having agreed upon rules that are written allows everyone to know them and avoids rule of man which can be very fickle and inconsistent. It is a big part of why western civilization has been so successful and why corruption is so damaging.

Knowable
This is similar in a lot of respects to consistent. However, one big difference is the benefit of having set in stone and codified rules can be negated to some extent if they are overly complicated, extensive, or otherwise inaccessible. The issue is when things become too complicated your average citizen becomes mostly unable to engage with the law in a meaningful way and must go through arbiters.

This reduces the consistency of the law's application because the skill of various arbiters (lawyers) varies and overly complicated laws force more litigation which puts the enforcement more in the hands of judges which allows a greater risk of the rule of man to raise its ugly head.

Followable
This of course plays off the previous two, but again has its own nuance. Even if the rules are consistent and knowable if they are very stringent and the penalties quick and brutal it is not good. Quality of life degrades if you can be executed on the street for doing something simple like spit.

So laws need to be reasonably easy to follow, and the consequences need to be both proportional and follow due process to give people warning as to the consequences as well as having a process to go through to avoid false accusations and unjustified punishment.

Conclusion
When you put all these together, even if you don't personally like the specific rules you will have a society that is navigable and functional. Plans can be made, business can be conducted, and peace and prosperity will come.